This is scary stuff!

This link points to an article in the Daily Telegraph written by Peter Clark who was, “until recently head of Scotland Yard’s counter terrorism command”, and is about the Government’s proposals to increase pre-charge detention of Terrorist Subjects to 42 days.

Clark’s article begins with an account of how he and his officers had to camp out and work 24/7 in order to beat the then 14 day pre-charge deadline to find evidence with which to charge a terror suspect. On this occasion he and his team were successful.

What frightened me (and, actually, the word ‘frightened’ is not strong enough, this is potentially terrifying) was the way in which he freely admitted that at the time the suspects were arrested to be held for fourteen days whilst investigations continued, he and his team had “not a shred of evidence” against their suspects – although, somehow, he and his team ‘knew’ they were guilty.

I find this incredible! Although in this instance Clarke’s belief in the guilt of the suspects was correct (the evidence suggests that around half of terror suspects arrested are subsequently released without charge), we may well ask how did Clarke and his team ‘know’ the suspects were guilty if they had not a shred of evidence? Was it a hunch? Was it an instinct? Was it a feeling in his bones? Whatever it was it clearly wouldn’t stand-up in court. It seems then that the legislation the Government is so determined to get through parliament will give police and security agencies a free reign to arrest and detain people for up to 42 days “without a shred of evidence” – simply because they just ‘know’ that someone is guilty.

If this Bill become law, as it seems it will does this mean that people might then be arrested and held on merely a whim, or a feeling or a hunch? Perhaps, in time the government will convince us that the threat of terrorism is such that the courts and any notion of due process and accountability will have to be phased out altogether. What a terrifying thought! We live in scary times!

There was more frightening stuff in today’s Guardian Letters page. Here, there is a disturbing letter signed by, inter alia Lord Rea, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Bruce Kent, John McDonell MP, a number of lawyers, MPs and other interested parties.

The letter makes the point that media discussion has tended to focus on only one aspect of the 2008 Counter Terrorism Bill (the 42 day pre-charge detention bit) and that this has diverted attention from other aspects of the bill which are “equally pernicious, given the excessively broad definition of terrorism given in the 2000 Terrorism Act.”

They note that, already, “anti-terror” powers are used widely – e.g., to convict individuals merely for alleged membership of the wrong political organisations, for possessing allegedly suspect DVDs, for downloading web pages; and to harass peaceful protesters.

They go on to say that the new bill further widens “the net of innocent people who will be incriminated.” E.g., the Bill:

• Creates a new offence of “seeking or communicating information about the armed forces which could be useful to terrorism.” This, they say, could be used against the Peace Movement.
• Lengthens sentences where an ‘ordinary’ offence is linked to terrorism leading, they say, to long periods in jail for minor offenders.
• Allows for further punishment to be imposed after conviction without further legal process and possibly on the basis of ‘secret evidence’ not revealed to the defendants. This might include the confiscation of property, bans on foreign travel etc.
• Will permit post-charge questioning of suspects which seems to do away with the need for extended pre-charge detention.
• Will allow ‘no jury’ hearings in the name of ‘National Security’. Which, the writers suggest, would seriously undermine police accountability amongst other things.

Add on to this the news of the recent arrest and detention of two members of the University of Nottingham because they had been found in possession of some Al Qaeda training manuals even though these were quite legitimately held in connection with university approved academic research into the subject.

Add on to this the fact that, allegedly, the number of CCTV cameras on our roads and in our cities makes us the most spied upon nation in the world (and, presumably, in the eyes of the government and the police the most untrusted people in the world) . . . . . and it all gets a little bit scary.

Some people will shrug all this off and say that law abiding citizens have nothing to fear. I wish that was true. The reality though is that once the law enforcement agencies have the power to arrest and detain people “without a shred of evidence” then being law abiding or not, we will all live in fear.

Have the terrorists won after all?